I think I can shed a little light on several of the courses on this list that I was involved with.
Shortly I left the RM Graves firm I did work with Richmond CC to rehabilitate their greens due to an unfortunate mix-up of fungicide for round-up. So the greens were rebuilt in a hurry and with no real attention to reconstructing them to a more flattering or interesting set of contours. It wasn't permissible to do this without a vote of the membership and there was no time for that. The only bunkering that was impacted was just the edges of the existing bunkers that abutted the greens we rebuilt, save for a few holes where we did completely rebuild the entire complex like 1, 3 and 18. I guess in that regard it was a restoration of sorts because we didn't do a whole lot of real creative work, although anyone from the Bay Area who has played the course would probably agree that it would benefit from a more comprehensive approach to shaping and most importantly tree harvesting.
I can verify that the Graves firm did do a renovation at San Geronimo in Marin County in the late 80's. Most of this was done before I joined that company in 1988 so I really can't speak to exactly what was done.
I also don't really have any first-hand information about work Graves may have done at Sharp Park in the early 70's as that was when I was in middle school in Mississippi.
But as for Sonoma Golf Club.............I can definitely speak of that one with some authority. First of all, I know the rep that Graves has on this board for much of the work he did renovating courses throughout California during the 60's, 70's, 80's and part of the 90's. I know that many on this board don't approve of the work he did finding it somewhat formulaic and predictable, almost as if he was importing his trademark stylings onto each differing site. I can't argue with that as a blanket statement.
However in defense of Bob Graves, whom I will always be thankful to for allowing me to move to California and to start my journey as a golf architect (and, yes, Damian Pascuzzo as well), Bob was truly a product of his times and was doing work asked of him by his clients. I know this statement will get some on this site riled up also. But it is the truth. Realistic and thoughtful dirt-up restorations were simply not the thing to do as much in Bob's salad days. He was providing, in most cases, improved design from what many of these courses had become and was almost ALWAYS doing it on a shoestring budget. Does this absolve some radical design de-evolution such as his work at the Meadow Club (which Mike DeVries has MASTERFULLY truly restored), probably not which leads into Sonoma.
Sonoma is located in the Valley of the Moon just to the northwest of the town of Sonoma, CA and dates to the 1920's. It is situated on a rectangular/squarish piece of land that is just gently rolling and the front nine revolves around the perimeter in a clockwise direction with the back nine going counter-clockwise inside of it. A perfect piece of property for a golf course.
By the late 80's it was quite literally a dog track. The mid-60's era clubhouse was akin to a typical muni clubhouse of that era, you know the type, the ones wherein you are olfactorily assaulted the moment you enter by the smell of half-burned hot dogs as you walk gingerly in metal spikes across a creaky floor covered by worn indoor/outdoor carpeting that was showing its age due to so many patrons trodding upon it with said metal spikes. This same level of "upkeep" was painfully evident on the golf course with crowned and mostly dirt tees adorned with those lovely wooden tee signs sponsored by Bud's Accounting Service, Juan's Taco Shop and the Ram It On Inn down the street. The supposedly interesting Sam Whiting/Willie Watson greens and bunkers had long lost any of their original form or function and, most importantly, the new Japanese owners had no desire to return to any kind of historic era.
What was important to them was to rebuild the course so that it would have a steady and constant supply of irrigation water, new spiffy wall-to-wall cart paths because people in the late 80's/early 90's obviously had lost too much muscle mass to actually walk across these very walkable grounds. They wanted a right proper practice range to help justify the projected $85 green fees (that didn't last long) and a new clubhouse to replace the aforementioned relic.
So how did all of this pan out and ultimately fail to retain hardly any true historic value, like this:
To get a steady source of water, several new lakes had to be dug as it is always easier to get large volumes of water to stay put within large holes in the ground. The only previous irrigation sources were several very specious wells and a dammed up stream that was mostly filled with silt after so many years and which would dry out by mid-summer anyway. Now, what to do with all of that dirt removed from the ground that allowed for consistent summer-long irrigation?
?
As for cartpaths, which were deemed of utmost importance, we did know that we at the very least wanted to have them intrude visually and playability-wise as little as possible so guess what happened to all of that dirt? They became containment mounds on the perimeters of most holes with meandering concrete ribbons hidden to varying levels of success behind them.
Did we do heavy research on where the perimeters of the old greens were? We should have but that was not done as it was of little importance to most involved (I'm just speaking factually here) so we designed fairly large and undulating greens averaging about 6,000 s.f. which were done fairly nicely as a matter of fact with Mackenzie-esque bunkering surrounding the greens and as new fairway bunkers as well.
That new practice range I mentioned? The only way to shoehorn that into place was to shift the 1st and 18th holes to the west making both of them much more extreme doglegs than they were before so that the new range could extend into the area previously occupied by the second half of the 1st hole including the 1st green. The 18th now plays to the same green location but the fairway itself is a sharper turn to the right.
To conclude I will just say that renovation vs. restoration is a valid discussion to always have and I wish, I really do, that we had paid more attention to the original features just lying fallow in the ground. They were there we just should have looked for them a little harder. In the end, however, what was put back together on this site was a long, long way from the sad state of affairs it had become and the client was ultimately happy with the results and it is today a fairly respected course, albeit with yet another new clubhouse constructed within this last decade. So, you can take Sonoma GC from its dog track status of 1988, or its renovated status of 1991 or its current state of design and maintenance and find pros and cons for them all. What the course isn't is what it was in 1928.................but never say never.